Changed compliance requirements in the 2012 JORC Code Steve Hunt - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Changed compliance requirements in the 2012 JORC Code Steve Hunt Deputy Chair JORC April 2013

Introduction Why are there so many changes between the 2004 Code and the 2012 Code? A little background: A number of ASX Companies Updates had been issued between 2005 and 2008 • related to JORC Code matters. In October 2011, the JORC Committee released an Issues Paper to stimulate • discussion and comment on how the JORC Code could be improved. The Issues Paper attracted 114 written submissions, as well as significant • additional feedback received through public forums and meetings. Comments on the Issues Paper confirmed strong support for the JORC Code • to remain a principles ‐ based professional Code. Comments also highlighted there was a need for improved disclosure standards, and a greater balance between the core principles of Transparency, Materiality, and Competence in Public Reporting. Evaluation of the responses enabled JORC to prepare an Exposure Draft of the • 2012 JORC Code which was released for public comment in September 2012. In addition to many comments made in consultation forums and meetings, • JORC received 82 written submissions in response to the Exposure Draft.

JORC Code ‐ Principles based The principles in Clause 4, 2004 JORC Code are: Transparency clear unambiguous presentation JORC Compliant Reports Materiality Competence all reasonable Based on work by information Competent Person expected

2004 JORC Code Principles— Competence Bias? A common distortion of the application of the Principles from Clause 4, 2004 JORC Code had been noticed resulting in: Transparency unclear un ambiguous presentation JORC Compliant Reports? Materiality selected reasonable Competence information Based on work by expected Competent Person

Changed Compliance Requirements for the 2012 Code • The requirement, when reporting initial or materially changed Exploration Results or estimates of Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves for significant projects, to report against Table 1 on an ‘if not, why not’ basis—Clauses 2, 5, 19, 27, 35, and the introduction to Table 1. • Competent Person attributions—Clause 9. • Exploration Target—now defined in the revised Clause 17. • At least a Pre ‐ Feasibility Study required for an Ore Reserve declaration—Clause 29. • Technical studies definitions—Clauses 37, 38, 39, and 40. • Metal equivalents—Clause 50. • In situ or ‘in ground’ values—Clause 51. • Additional guidance on reporting requirements for Competent Persons—Table 1 body of table.

Clause 2 2004 Code “2. In this edition of the JORC Code, important terms and their definitions are highlighted in bold text. The guidelines are placed after the respective Code clauses using indented italics . They are intended to provide assistance and guidance to readers. They do not form part of the Code, but should be considered persuasive when interpreting the Code. Indented italics are also used for Appendix 1 – ‘Generic Terms and Equivalents’ and Table 1 – ‘Check List of Assessment and Reporting Criteria’ to make it clear that they are also part of the guidelines, and that the latter is not mandatory for reporting purposes.” This statement (in red above), together with all of the examples being negative, was taken by many Competent Persons as an opportunity not to report all material information.

Clause 2 2012 Code “2. In this edition of the JORC Code, important terms and their definitions are highlighted in bold text. The guidelines are placed after the respective Code Clauses using indented italics. Guidelines are not part of the Code, but are intended to provide assistance and guidance to readers and should be considered persuasive when interpreting the Code.” Indented italics are also used for Appendix 1 – ‘Generic Terms and Equivalents’ and Table 1 – ‘Check List of Assessment and Reporting Criteria’ to make it clear that they are also part of the guidelines, and that the latter is not mandatory for reporting purposes. Further guidance on the importance of material information is now included in Clauses 5, 19, 27, 35, and the introduction to Table 1.

Clause 4 2012 Code—Additional Explanation of Principles “Transparency and Materiality are guiding principles of the Code, and the Competent Person must provide explanatory commentary on the material assumptions underlying the declaration of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources or Ore Reserves. In particular, they must consider that the benchmark of Materiality is that which includes all aspects relating to the Exploration Results, Mineral Resources or Ore Reserves that an investor or their advisers would reasonably expect to see explicit comment on from the Competent Person. The Competent Person must not remain silent on any material aspect for which the presence or absence of comment could affect the public perception or value of the mineral occurrence.” This slide contains extracts only of Clause 4, 2012 JORC Code

Clause 5 2012 Code—Expands on Reporting Principles “Table 1 provides a checklist or reference of criteria to be considered by the Competent Person in developing their documentation and in preparing the Public Report. In the context of complying with the principles of the Code, comments relating to the items in the relevant sections of Table 1 should be provided on an ‘if not, why not’ basis within the Competent Person’s documentation . Additionally comments related to the relevant sections of Table 1 must be complied with on an ‘if not, why not’ basis within Public Reporting for significant projects (see Appendix 1 Generic Terms and Equivalents) when reporting Exploration Results, Mineral Resources or Ore Reserves for the first time. Table 1 also applies in instances where these items have materially changed from when they were last Publicly Reported. Reporting on an ‘if not, why not’ basis is to ensure that it is clear to an investor whether items have been considered and deemed of low consequence or are not yet addressed or resolved.” This slide contains extracts only of Clause 5, 2012 JORC Code

2012 Code—Introduction of Some New Terms • Significant project : “ An exploration or mineral development project that has or could have a significant influence on the market value or operations of the listed company, and/or has specific prominence in Public Reports and announcements .” (Appendix 1, equivalent to ASX material project). • Material change : “ A material change could be a change in the estimated tonnage or grade or in the classification of the Mineral Resources or Ore Reserves. Whether there has been a material change in relation to a significant project must be considered by taking into account all of the relevant circumstances, including the style of mineralisation. This includes considering whether the change in estimates is likely to have a material effect on the price or value of the company’s secur ities.” (Guideline to Clause 5). • ‘if not, why not’ : “ means that each item listed in the relevant section of Table 1 must be discussed and if it is not discussed then the Competent Person must explain why it has been omitted from the documentation.” (Guideline to Clause 5).

Clause 19 2012 Code—Additional Requirements for Exploration Results Greater clarity on what information related to Exploration Results is required to be reported along with ‘if not, why not’ reporting against the relevant criteria in Table 1. For significant projects the reporting of all criteria in sections 1 and 2 of Table 1 on an ‘if not, why not’ basis is required. This is preferably as an appendix to the Public Report. Additional disclosure is particularly important where inadequate or uncertain data affect the reliability of, or confidence in, a statement of Exploration Results; for example, poor sample recovery, poor repeatability of assay or laboratory results, etc. This slide contains information extracted from Clause 19, 2012 JORC Code

Clause 27 2012 Code—Additional Requirements for Mineral Resources In Public Reports of Mineral Resources for a significant project for the first time, or when those estimates have materially changed (including classification changes) from when they were last reported, a brief summary of the information for all relevant criteria in Table 1 on an ‘if not, why not’ basis is required. If a particular criterion is not relevant or material, a disclosure that it is not relevant or material and a brief explanation of why this is the case must be provided. “The Technical summary based against Table 1 criteria should be presented as an appendix to the Public Report.” Note: This guidance relates directly to ASX Listing Rule requirements. This slide contains information extracted from Clause 27, 2012 JORC Code